
Argentine Photojournalist Critically Injured Amid Violent Anti-Milei Protest
March 13, 2025
The White House press pool became a way to control journalists – Trump is taking this to new levels
March 14, 2025March 13, 2025 – USA/India –
U.S. journalist Raphael Satter filed a lawsuit against the Indian government after his Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) status was revoked. Satter, a cybersecurity reporter for Reuters, received a letter from India’s Ministry of Home Affairs in December 2023, accusing him of producing work that “maliciously” tarnished India’s reputation. The revocation of his OCI card means he can no longer travel to India, where his family resides. Satter denies conducting journalism in India and asserts that he only visited the country to see his family. He believes the cancellation was a retaliatory measure linked to his investigative reporting on Appin, an Indian cybersecurity firm, and its co-founder Rajat Khare. The Indian government has until May 22, 2025, to justify the cancellation in court.
This case has drawn international attention, raising concerns about press freedom and the rights of overseas citizens. Human Rights Watch has criticized the Indian government’s actions as politically motivated repression, noting that similar measures have been taken against journalists and academics critical of the government. Satter’s legal petition challenges the grounds for the OCI revocation, suggesting it was a retaliatory measure. The next court hearing in Satter’s case is scheduled for May 22, 2025.
The revocation of Satter’s OCI status is part of a broader pattern of actions by the Indian government against individuals critical of its policies. In 2019, journalist Aatish Taseer’s OCI status was revoked after he wrote a critical article about Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Taseer alleged that the revocation was retaliatory and part of a broader pattern of the government’s actions to suppress dissent.
As the legal proceedings continue, the case remains a significant example of the tensions between press freedom and government actions perceived as suppressing dissenting voices.
Reference –